- (1.) The petitioner is a consumer. He runs a proprietary concern manufacturing garments. He carries on his business activity in industrial shed bearing No. 60 in the Industrial Town, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. The industrial shed has electrical installations and meter installed by the Karnataka Electricity Board, the third respondent herein, bears No. NIP-377-P2-411. On 27.7.1989, petitioner received a demand for Rs. 49,405.40 from the second respondent, the Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical), Sub-Division 3, Karnataka Electricity Board, Basaveshwara Nagar, Bangalore. On enquiry, it was informed that the bill for the afore-mentioned sum of Rs. 49,405.40 was in respect of the back-billing charges for consuming extra load of 22 HP and the meter was not reading properly. He then filed an appeal before the Superintending Engineer. That is pending consideration. As matters stood thus, on 16.8.1989, petitioner received yet another bill by the respondent demanding a sum of Rs. 63,413.60 out of which a sum of Rs. 21,551.45 was demanded as audit short claim. That bill is produced at Annexure 'B'. Again petitioner contacted the officials of the Board. He was then informed that the meter was running slow by 13% and that he has been treated as Audit Short Claim. A letter in that behalf was issued as at Annexure 'C'. Thereafterwards, petitioner again received a demand for Rs. 21,551.40 which is produced at Annexure 'D'. Petitioner being aggrieved by the demands made, has approached this Court contending inter alia that the demands are wholly without the authority of law, arbitrary and therefore, not tenable and as such liable to be quashed by this Court.
(2.) Notice regarding rule was issued by this Court on December 2, 1989. Since then the respondents have entered appearance and filed their statement objections. They have factually brushed aside the demands made earlier in the sum of Rs. 49,000/- and odd as not being the subject-matter of this Writ Petition. With reference to the claim of Rs. 21,551.40, as Audit Short Claim vide Annexures 'B' and 'D' to the petition, it is claimed that it is in accordance with Regulation 30.08 of Electricity Supply Regulations, 1988. It is admitted by them that details with regard to the Audit Short Claim have been furnished vide Annexure 'C'. Then there is reference to use of excess load by the petitioner (unauthorised load) contrary to the agreement under which the supply of energy was made to him. 'Unauthorised load', it is explained, means that if the installation is supplied with energy to run motors of 'X' Horse Power and the consumer uses power X+Y, the surplus 'Y' becomes unauthorised use of the sanctioned load.
(3.) As noticed, the relevant date is anterior to the new regulation. Annexure 'C' makes a reference to the report by the Meter Inspector on 4.8.1986. Therefore, Regulations of 1988 had no application whatsoever. When this was pointed out, the learned counsel said that even if the old Regulations were applied, the demand was in order. Old Regulations applicable, as amended are as follows :- "In respect of LT Installations if at any time the connected load specified in the agreement is unauthorisedly increased by the consumer, then without prejudice to any criminal prosecution or other legal action which the supplier may take against the consumer, the consumer shall, on demand, pay to the supplier for such concerned load exceeding the load indicated in the agreement at thrice the normal rate per KW per month for such period as may be deemed justified in the circumstances of any given case subject to a maximum period of six months. This amount shall be in addition to the claim already made for the period for which back-billing is preferred. If the consumer continues excess unauthorised connected load for a period exceeding 3 months, even after notifying the offence to him by the Board, the installation is liable for disconnection after 3 months from the date of issue of such notice, notwithstanding the fact of payment of penal levy." Annexure 'C' refers not only to use of unauthorised loan, but also to slow running of the meter. The bills issued at Annexures 'A', 'B' and 'D' never pointed out any of these things. It is only when the petitioner made persistent enquiries, he has been explained orally or has been admittedly issued with Annexure 'C'. From what is extracted as Regulation 41(d)(iv) of the Regulations, it is seen, the explanation as at Annexure 'C' does not conform to what is mentioned in the Regulation. In fact, it has been impossible for this Court to arrive at the formula by which number of units has been arrived at as the unauthorised load used and load at which it must be taxed as penalty in addition to the charges already paid by the consumer. The learned counsel also was unable to explain except to state that the first item 914.30 relates to slow running of the meter by 13%. One does not know 13% of what and for which period. However, that has been sought to be explained in the statement of objections.;